Representative Steve Scalise Shot in a "Deliberate Attack" at GOP Softball Practice

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You're right, I shouldn't have said 8 years. The Republicans won the house back in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 so for the first two years of Obama's presidency they did not hold a majority in either. They did however hold a majority in both for the last two years of Obama's presidency.

Yeah I agree with that.

 

[Sanji Himura]

But it's totally okay when the political right do it? After all, Donald Trump insinuated that Hilary Clinton would be shot if she tried to pass gun control legislation during the campaign. Where was your outrage then?

Hold up, you are comparing apples to oranges here. What Donald Trump actually said was this:

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Here is what Hillary said about gun control during the campaign:

I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.

The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment [referring to the Heller decision]. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.

If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorists links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun.

That last quote is particularly tasty because she suggested that IF you are even SUSPECTED of committing a crime, then YOUR right to own a gun should go away. That isn't constitutional. You can't just be suspected of a crime for one's liberty, and that includes owning a gun, to be taken away. That isn't how our republic works, and for Hillary to even to suggest changing the rules to the extreme that she desires, it is little wonder WHY Donald Trump said what he said, in the context that he said.

This incident overnight was one person acting alone. And it should be assumed that he was a lone wolf until proven otherwise. His actions do not speak for the wider body of the political left.

Agreed with the bolded part. This is still an active investigation so there may be more co-conspirators that are on the lam, if at all.

This incident overnight was one person acting alone. And it should be assumed that he was a lone wolf until proven otherwise. His actions do not speak for the wider body of the political left.

Maybe not at face value, but it does speak of the extreme left IF you have been paying attention to the news sites for the last 18 months or so.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You can't just be suspected of a crime for one's liberty, and that includes owning a gun, to be taken away.

But you can be blocked from entering the country simply because you come from the same corner of the world as a terrorist?

What about the rights of people to not live in fear? A terrorist is known to authorities for some time, but they have insufficuent evidence to prosecute. The terrorist buys a gun and kills a dozen people. But because the terrorist has more of a right to own a gun than their victims do to live a full and happy life, the authorities could not prevent the attack.

 

[Joey D]

But you can be blocked from entering the country simply because you come from the same corner of the world as a terrorist?

That part is Constitutionally questionable, which is why it is such an issue right now.

What about the rights of people to not live in fear? A terrorist is known to authorities for some time, but they have insufficuent evidence to prosecute. The terrorist buys a gun and kills a dozen people. But because the terrorist has more of a right to own a gun than their victims do to live a full and happy life, the authorities could not prevent the attack.

However, this part isn't questionable per the US Constitution. Citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms which means you can legally own a firearm. I believe states do have the right to enact their own laws regarding guns and ownership though.

I do agree more should be done to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a risk to society, but at the same time I don't want to deny someone their rights granted to them by the country they are a citizen of. One of the best things the US could do would be to target the black market and stop counterfeit guns from coming in from places like the Philippines. A criminal is far less likely to buy a gun through legal channels than illegal ones. It wouldn't stop everything, but I think it would definitely help,

 

[Sanji Himura]

One of the best things the US could do would be to target the black market and stop counterfeit guns from coming in from places like the Philippines.

Eric Holder did try to do that. It was called "Fast and Furious". It was a complete failure.

What about the rights of people to not live in fear? A terrorist is known to authorities for some time, but they have insufficuent evidence to prosecute. The terrorist buys a gun and kills a dozen people. But because the terrorist has more of a right to own a gun than their victims do to live a full and happy life, the authorities could not prevent the attack.

Key phrase here in bold. You can not handcuff one's personal liberty unless they have been convicted of a crime. That has been the way it was for going on 241 years. Hillary can't change that unless she throws out the constitution.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You can not handcuff one's personal liberty unless they have been convicted of a crime.

Only if you assume that it's a case of have all of the evidence or none of it. You could conceivably have enough evidence to justify suspicion, but not enough to prosecute. What do you do if someone have been visiting jihadi websites with increasing frequency and then goes out and buys a gun?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

What do you do if someone have been visiting jihadi websites with increasing frequency and then goes out and buys a gun?

So you want the government to check our browser history before we can buy a gun?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So you want the government to check our browser history before we can buy a gun?

Wouldn't you want the government to do everything they can to protect you?

Governments are aware of people who are becoming radicalised. If one such person tries to acquire a gun, what is the lesser evil: depriving them of the right to own a gun when they intend to exercise that right for the explicit purpose of harming others, or allowing that person to own a gun and depriving their victims of the right to live free from the tyranny of others?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Wouldn't you want the government to do everything they can to protect you?

Ain't nobody checking my browser history. And if I wanted to be a terrorist, I'd use an incognito browser anyway.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Wouldn't you want the government to do everything they can to protect you?

Governments are aware of people who are becoming radicalised. If one such person tries to acquire a gun, what is the lesser evil: depriving them of the right to own a gun when they intend to exercise that right for the explicit purpose of harming others, or allowing that person to own a gun and depriving their victims of the right to live free from the tyranny of others?

So everyone visiting a jihadi website is a terrorist now and we should take away their guns

 

[Sanji Himura]

Governments are aware of people who are becoming radicalised. If one such person tries to acquire a gun, what is the lesser evil: depriving them of the right to own a gun when they intend to exercise that right for the explicit purpose of harming others, or allowing that person to own a gun and depriving their victims of the right to live free from the tyranny of others?

The issue is that that the Government has to prove intent. The government can be aware of people's habits all they want, but if they want to throw me in jail on that intelligence, they have to prove that I have broken the law. Being a suspected terrorist doesn't break any law anywhere in the civilized world, nor should it be. At best, they would be a target of investigation and surveillance. Otherwise, they should be considered free citizens and should enjoy their rights.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

About today’s shooter.

I don’t so much blame the “arts”, as I do the media. Trump getting killed on stage, or having his bloody head being held by his orange hair, I don’t think they encourage anything, I just think they are tasteless.

It is the media that this guy paid attention to, especially MSNBC.

Put yourself in this guys shoes.

You’re a Bernie supporter.

First you find out the Russians hack the DNC, and you find out the DNC stole the election from your guy.

Whoa, your mad.

Then a racist, misogynist, tax cheat, a totally evil guy, becomes the president.

THEN, you find out it was Trump working with the Russians that stole the presidency.

Now you're really mad.

You are watching/reading left wing news. Trump with hookers in Russian, now we got him! Nope.

Trump gave top secrets to the Russians, NOW we got him!!! Nope.

But don't you remember, Trump was working with the Russians. He stole the election. *crickets*

He obstructed justice! *more crickets*

OMG, your furious!

Well, somebody has to do something, dammit!

It is the far left press pushing the lies, and the main stream press doing little to correct it, and even encouraging it.
This whole Russian story, was never a story, the same with the obstruction of justice story.

I believe the shooter today was a true patriot. He loved his country and truly believed that Trump and the Republican Party were trying to destroy the democracy.

But he believed those lies.

I blame the media.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So everyone visiting a jihadi website is a terrorist now

I'm sure we're all very interested to know what legitimate reason a person would have to visit a jihadi website ...

 

[Carbonox]

I'm sure we're all very interested to know what legitimate reason a person would have to visit a jihadi website ...

Knowing their enemy?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump getting killed on stage

I could explain why this is not the big deal that you're making it out to be, but I've lost track of how many times I've done it now. Why don't you actually read the play before you pass judgement on it?

Knowing their enemy?

How about you do an experiment: go and visit those sites a hundred times or so, then go out and buy a gun. At the trial, tell the judge that you were doing it to know your enemy. When you get out of prison thirty years later, tell us what you learned from the experience.

 

[Imari]

Wouldn't you want the government to do everything they can to protect you?

Not really, no. You could always summon up a little personal responsibility for your own welfare.

I blame the media.

No. The media may be a problem, but they're words on a box. People have responsibility for their own actions. The shooter chose what he wanted to do, and the responsibility for the consequences lies with him and no one else.

One can quite easily see their country going to pot and not choose to shoot people in cold blood. How is that going to make things better?

I'm sure we're all very interested to know what legitimate reason a person would have to visit a jihadi website ...

:censored:s and giggles? I'm curious as to what is on a jihadi website. Can you recommend any good ones?

 

[eran0004]

I believe the shooter today was a true patriot. He loved his country and truly believed that Trump and the Republican Party were trying to destroy the democracy.

Of course he believed he was doing the right thing. But I don't think it's so much because of the media as it is because of the filter bubble and because of some personal circumstances of his, possibly depression or some other mental issue.

Media has been reporting with bias ever since the printing press was invented. What has changed now is that because of social media we have the power to shut ourselves out of opinions that we don't like and spend our time in environments that only confirm what we already believe. Reporting on alleged Russian ties is fine. The problem is when you censor your own environment so that those news are the only news you receive. That's what's so great about GTPlanet in a way, because since this is primarily a gaming forum revolving around cars, our political views are so radically different that we don't just end up confirming each other, but rather that we challenge each other and present different perspectives.

Sometimes it leads to very toxic "discussions", but that's better than to end up like this man.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You could always summon up a little personal responsibility for your own welfare.

There's only so much that the individual can do to protect themselves.

 

[Dotini]

This case seems to be similar to that of Gabrielle Giffords of a few years ago, but forgotten now. Will this case be similarly forgotten? I think so. Or is this case somehow different?

 

[UKMikey]

This case seems to be similar to that of Gabrielle Giffords of a few years ago, but forgotten now.

Not on this thread.

It appears to be the 2011 Tucson shooting in reverse.

Gabby Gifford's statement:

"I am heartbroken for the pain of Congressman Scalise, the other victims, and their family, friends and colleagues who survived," Giffords said in the statement.

She also praised the Capitol Police, who were the first to respond to the shooting.

"I am thankful for the great courage of the Capitol Police, who were my protectors after I was shot and became my friends," Giffords said. "I also know the courage it takes to recover from a shooting like this, and I know Steve and everyone there this morning have such courage in great supply."

Statements like this mean more coming from her because she's been through it before.

 

[Sanji Himura]

You could always summon up a little personal responsibility for your own welfare.

Great quote. Mind if I remember that for the end of the year awards?

There's only so much that the individual can do to protect themselves.

Really? Then please define those limits for us, if you would be so kind. If you saw one drunk clown trying to "get frisky" with a non-consenting woman, and you were in a position to end things, would you? What if he had a gun?

Maybe for relevance, if you saw a person shooting up a store, killing people in the process, and you were in a position to end things badly for the bad guy, would you?

The point is that you see things in black and white when you should be looking at the world through shades of grey. I personally abhor guns, but that doesn't mean that I don't support the common citizen's right to be well armed in case of an emergency.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I personally abhor guns, but that doesn't mean that I don't support the common citizen's right to be well armed in case of an emergency.

But what you are suggesting is that a person who is a threat to the community should be entitled to own a deadly weapon. Because apparently preserving that right is more important than protecting people from danger.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm sure we're all very interested to know what legitimate reason a person would have to visit a jihadi website ...

General interest. Wanting to know what all the fuss is about. Maybe I have a neighbour that's acting weird and want to do some research. Maybe my child visited them doing research for a school paper and I looked over his/her shoulder. Maybe a friend sent me a link and advised me to check it out for curiousity. There's nothing inherently dangerous about the act of visiting a website and it's not illegal as far as I know to do so.

 

[Tornado]

I'm sure we're all very interested to know what legitimate reason a person would have to visit a jihadi website ...

Apparently so the courts can have a pretext to send someone to jail for 30 years.

 

[Joey D]

Eric Holder did try to do that. It was called "Fast and Furious". It was a complete failure.

That was about knowingly letting criminals have access to guns in order to bring down those higher up the chain in Mexican cartels. It's one tactic to combat the black market, but anyone who thought combating criminal use of firearms by allowing criminals to have possession of said firearms seems a bit foolish. I get what they were trying to do, but there is no way they could possibly police it effectively. There has to be other ways to combat the black market.

 

[Imari]

There's only so much that the individual can do to protect themselves.

Certainly. Which is why I'd like the government to take care of those things, and leave to me the things where I can reasonably protect myself. Seem reasonable?

 

[Dotini]

Ever see a John Wayne western movie? My generation grew up on them. They taught us that fists, knives and guns are acceptable means to resolve conflict. At least in western movies.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ever see a John Wayne western movie? My generation grew up on them. They taught us that fists, knives and guns are acceptable means to resolve conflict. At least in western movies.

Yes, but they also taught that the natives were mostly always bad and could morally be eradicated.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, but they also taught that the natives were mostly always bad and could morally be eradicated.

We failed at eradicating the natives. De Soto started it. Were there 50,000,000 in North America? Down to under 2 million would make Hitler proud.

PS: I'm currently studying the Southern Death Cult of the Mississippian mound builder period. They seemed to have practiced ritual sacrifice of maidens. 230 of them were found in one grave alone! There seems to be a certain something about North America which whispers "violence".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Certainly. Which is why I'd like the government to take care of those things, and leave to me the things where I can reasonably protect myself. Seem reasonable?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you have said. I never have. Rather, I'm arguing that if the authorities have reason to believe that someone poses an imminent threat to the community, then they should protect the community, especially if members of the community have done everything they can to protect themselves but are unable to fully do so. If that means preventing somebody from having access to a weapon that they will then use to harm the community, then that seems pretty reasonable to me. But some people here think that the right of a terrorist to own a gun is more important than the rights of innocent civilians to live.